• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Agnostic or Atheist?

Re: Re: I'm a devout Agnostic

Mosquito said:
ETA: I just realised that this may make me a theist... I believe there are gods out there with greatly overrated abilities, but if you can actually show their existence... Like Mars, it's there, but it's abilities are somewhat overrated. Anybody have any opinions on this?
Click to expand...

Just thought I'd try to clear this up:

As an atheist, can I really be the one to define what a god is? Do I not have to accept that the believer defines what a god is, and then make a stand for or against that? I can't say that this particular rock/tree/statue/phallos symbol is NOT a god if it has a bunch of worshippers, can I?

I can of course dispute the abilities and worship worthiness of the god, but it's godhood?


Mosquito (may have painted from the wrong corner)
 
Re: Re: Re: I'm a devout Agnostic

jmercer said:
FYI, Mosquito - this has been debated endlessly. :)

God(s), Goddess(es), and deity in general cannot be disproven based on their nature, because the claim is that they are paranormal beings. The "paranormal" aspect excuses them from natural law limitations, etc. And since they are "beings", there is no way to compel them to manifest on command, so it's not like a test can be devised to prove or disprove their existence.

Annoying, isn't it? :D
Click to expand...

I am aware of this, but old people may remember old solutions and new people may have new solutions to old problems. Just because something has been discussed before doesn't mean that it can't be discussed again. Hopefully with some new input so it doesn't just become a rerun.

Does a god have to be paranormal in nature? Isn't this very colored from the current, modern view of things? Some gods used to walk around among people, if they could then, they should be able to do so now (unless something has changed).

Aren't some gods more like anthro... athrop... personifications of natural forces? Some tests may thus be devised, though I can see the problem of differentiating between "force of nature due to nature works like that" and "force of nature because Guruk does his job".


Mosquito (trying to have an open mind about what a god can be)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm a devout Agnostic

Mosquito said:
Does a god have to be paranormal in nature? Isn't this very colored from the current, modern view of things? Some gods used to walk around among people, if they could then, they should be able to do so now (unless something has changed).
Click to expand...

I think there's a MASH quote for this. Something like, "The army is always leaving stuff behind after a war. There's a tribe on Guadalcanal that made a god out of a '35 Chevy."
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm a devout Agnostic

Mosquito said:
I am aware of this, but old people may remember old solutions and new people may have new solutions to old problems. Just because something has been discussed before doesn't mean that it can't be discussed again. Hopefully with some new input so it doesn't just become a rerun.

Does a god have to be paranormal in nature? Isn't this very colored from the current, modern view of things? Some gods used to walk around among people, if they could then, they should be able to do so now (unless something has changed).

Aren't some gods more like anthro... athrop... personifications of natural forces? Some tests may thus be devised, though I can see the problem of differentiating between "force of nature due to nature works like that" and "force of nature because Guruk does his job".


Mosquito (trying to have an open mind about what a god can be)
Click to expand...

Good point. :)

Some Gods are indeed anthropomorphic representations of natural forces. And there is a documented instance of a remote tribe worshiping a downed airplane.

In the case of the anthropomorphic Gods that represent natural forces, the paranormal aspect is that these "Gods" can control and direct such forces. In the case of the tribe, the paranormal aspect of their beliefs lay in what they thought the crashed plane represented. They took the plane as evidence of their God's existence, and a holy item given to them by their God to be worshipped (think "golden idols"). They didn't think the plane was the God itself.

In essence, any God, Goddess, or Deity must have a paranormal aspect to them in some regard... even if that claim is that they have achieved Enlightenment and perceive the Universe for what it truly is, stripped of all illusion, or if we're talking about Ug, the God of Fire who provides warmth, light, and drives away the bad night spirits. :)
 
pgwenthold said:
As far as I know, we have no evidence that there is any planet that orbits the center star of Orion's belt. Do you believe that there is a planet that orbits the center star in Orion's belt?

No? Then does that mean you believe there are no planets that orbit the center star in Orion's belt?
Click to expand...

YES.

But even so, you're talking about something different; the difference being between not having an opinion because one is not aware of the problem, and refusing to totally commit to an opinion that one nevertheless agrees is closer to the truth.
 
This topic is discussed incessantly ...

There is a difference between 'know' and 'believe', and Huxley, who coined the term 'agnosticism' was absolutely clear as to his intended meaning:
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

Agnosticism", 1889
Click to expand...
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

Agnosticism and Christianity", 1889
Click to expand...
Important, here, is the identification: 'agnosticism' = 'method'. One consequence of the application of this method may well be the contention that insufficient evidence has been offered to warrant belief in diety. This is the stance of the agnostic athiest. An alternative stance, agnostic theism or 'fideism', is a deism/theism based on "faith alone".
 
You can either have a belief or not have a belief (lack a belief) on issues concerning god(s).

Have Belief (have made a decision)
If you believe god exists, then you have a belief. If you believe god does not exist, then you have a belief. A disbelief is the same as a belief. Someone who disbelieves that god exists, also believes that god does not exist. Someone who disbelieves that god does not exist, also believes that god does exist.

Lack Belief (haven't made a decision)
Someone who lacks a belief has no belief/disbelief. They haven't made a decision of what to believe. This could be because they think there isn't enough information available to make a decision, or because they are still in the process of deciding, or becasue they haven't had the chance to decide (such as a one year old child), or because they just don't even bother trying to make a decision, etc...

There are two main things that you can make a decision about that concerns god(s); knowledge of existance and existance.

If you decide (have a belief) that you can have knowledge concerning the existance/non-existance of god(s), then, and only then, can you decide (have a belief) whether god(s) do or do not exist.

This is how I personally label them. The +/- signs mean that you can/cannot have knowledge or does/doesn't exist. The ~ sign means undecided.

Code: 
1. Theist/Deist          +Knowledge ---> +Existance (believes you can know and that it does exist)
2. Atheist               +Knowledge ---> -Existance (believes you can know and that it doesn't exist)
3. Confused              +Knowledge ---> ~Existance (believes you can find out and is still trying)
4. Agnostic              -Knowledge (believes that you cannot know)
5. Confused              ~Knowledge (doesn't know if you can know, has absolutely no belief)

People who are #5 sometimes call themselves agnostic, but I consider them confused. You can call them soft agnostics if you want to be nice.

A #4 will sometimes say that they are an atheist that "has no belief" or "lack of a belief" or "without belief" or "blah blah blah", in a god rather than a "disbelief" in a god.

A #2 is me. Sometimes we're called hard atheists or hardcore atheists. However, we were hardcore before we even became atheists (unless you become an atheist because you're sad, angry or rebellious).
 
ReasonableDoubt said:
It is a difficult epistemology to maintain. Perhaps you would consider a new thread in defense of that dogma?
Click to expand...

Can I also defend the dogma that you can know that absolutely everything that exists (except for the creators) was not brought into existance by 23 supernatural talking owls who created elohim and allah and control them both?

One thing I should have added as well is the nature of the god in question. An agnostic for instance may believe that knowledge of the existance of a specific kind of god can be obtained. Just as someone may believe that a square circle may not exist, someone may also believe that a god that is perfect that also creates imperfect things cannot exist. I believe that all such beliefs have these sort of flaws and that it is most likely that homosapiens are simply incapable of resolving such flaws.
 
It is a bit hard to define atheism without first defining Theism clearly. Also we should probably deal with how words are used as well as what they were originally intended to convey.

The problem is that many Christian apologists regard an agnostic as a Christian that has not made up his or her mind yet. They regard agnosticism as a small victory, an exploitable crack. For example the Australian Cardinal Pell said recently that religion was on the rise in Australia because there were fewer "confident atheists" than before.

If you were to put the proposition that the universe might have been caused by some intelligent agency, using 'intelligence' in a very broad sense then I would have to say that this is not impossible. So far we have only observed intelligence in animals on this planet and it seems unlikely that a property of life forms on planets might have been the cause of the universe.

But it is not impossible that something like intelligence caused the universe. So is that position Deism, Theism, Agnosticism or Atheism? I would say that it is still atheism. Agnosticism now seems to imply 'the jury is still out'. Whereas I would say that you would need to work up a case and gather evidence before you can even think of putting it to a jury.

If you define Theism in terms of the claim that everything in the Christian Bible is absolutely, literally, infallibly true then the overwhelming majority of people in the world would clearly be atheists. Even if you relax it and say that Theism means the Christian Bible is absolutely, allegorically, infallibly true then the majority would still be atheists. And you would find very few people that would attempt to defend even this definition of Theism.

Notice for example the recent tendency to 'refute atheism' rather than to defend Theism. For example Alister McGrath who has decided that Marx, Freud and Dawkins are the "prime philosophers" of atheism, so he only has to find problems with their philosophies and he has 'refuted atheism'. All without any evidence for the existence of God.
 
I thought I would add how I use these words in context. I have a very specific way I refer to things.

Strong Atheist - believes that there is no God. Active disbelief.
Weak Atheist - does not believe there is a God, due to lack of evidence. Passive disbelief.
Default Athiest - one who has never heard of God, or does not possess the mental ability to think about it.
Agnostic - believes there is no way to know whether God exists
Gnostic - believes there is a way to know whether God exists
Deist - believes that God exists, but that the point is irrelevant
Apatheist - believes the question of God's existence doesn't matter
Theist - believes God exists, and that the point is relevant
Maltheist - believes God exists, but hates Him

These are all statements about belief.

[A]gnosticism are belief statements about knowledge about God's existence.

[whatever]eism are belief statements about God's existence.

However every single one of these statements is useless unless we first define God, as Robin has pointed out.

In my eyes, the positions that make sense, if we are to accept the mainstream Christian definition, are agnosticism and strong atheism. If we were to think of pantheism, my response would be gnostic, Deist.
 
I didn't realize it could be so complicated.

(a) I believe that there is no such thing as God;

(b) I believe that the non-existence of God cannot be proved.

I make statement "b" essentially because, no matter what you believe about the origins of the universe, it is always just possible that somebody supernaturally caused it to be that way.

If I substitute "Father Christmas" for "God" in both (a) and (b), they are still valid statements. Indeed, I think that the probability of the existence of God and the probability of the existence of Father Christmas are equal: not zero, but infinitesimal.

I think this makes me a simple agnostic atheist. I don't want to quibble further about definitions, but I must say that it makes no sense to treat "agnostic" and "atheist" as mutually exclusive terms.

Incidentally, I believe that the non-existence of the specifically Christian version of God can be proved. But that is another question.
 
Even if only one God existed, there are as many gods as there are people on this planet. ;)
 
Iacchus said:
Even if only one God existed, there are as many gods as there are people on this planet. ;)
Click to expand...

Facts support World Population: 6,379,157,361

Facts support Gods=0
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom